Transcript Slide 1

Greenhouse Gas Pilot
Debrief of Outcomes
August/ September 2006
Outline
1.
Background
2.
CoAG decision
3.
Pilot Outcomes
4.
Your Say
5.
Questions
What is the Greenhouse Pilot?
•
Aim: Examine GHG reporting & disclosure by
industry with a critical focus on the issues
associated with using NPI
•
Led by Victoria, in conjunction with all States and
Territories, comprises 2 work streams:
–
Strategic Issues Stream (policy issues)
–
Practical Implementation Stream
(data collection presentation)
• Draft position paper
• Consultation
• Final position paper
• 25 companies, 70 sites across Aust
• Data available at EPA website
• Report on 2004/05 data collection
soon on EPA website:
www.epa.vic.gov.au/air/greenhouse_pilot/default.asp
The NPI NEPM Variation
•
At its meeting in July 2005, EPHC agreed to initiate
the NPI NEPM variation process
•
A draft NEPM and Impact Statement has been
prepared
•
Major issues under consideration are:
–
Greenhouse gases
–
Transfers of waste
–
Review of substances and thresholds
•
Other changes include name change (National
Emissions Inventory) and removal of Aquaculture
exclusion
•
GHG issue has been informed by Victoria’s
Greenhouse Pilot
Background
•
– other processes
Joint EPHC/MCE groups (PWG/TWG) tasked
with investigating:
1.Streamlining reporting burden (of various
programs) through a common web
reporting point (TWG)
2.Options for a national mandatory
reporting requirement (PWG)
•
NEPC foreshadowed NPI’s potential role in above by
agreeing to initiate NEPM Variation mid-2005
COAG Decision – 14 July 2006
• Jurisdictions have been directed to pursue
national purpose-built legislation for emissions
and energy reporting and report back to COAG by
December 2006
• As a result all EPHC work on GHG has been
halted, pending the above
• Should national purpose-built legislation not be
agreed at December COAG the NPI becomes a
valid fallback position
• CoAG’s communiqué at:
www.coag.gov.au (p.9)
COAG Decision –
14 July 2006
“Climate Change
In relation to energy and greenhouse gas emissions reporting, COAG agreed
that a single streamlined system that imposes the least cost and red tape
burden is the preferable course of action. To this end:
• COAG agreed that Senior Officials report back to COAG in December 2006
with a proposal for streamlining emissions and energy reporting in line
with the above objectives. The report should be based on the preparation of
national purpose-built legislation to provide for cost-effective mandatory
reporting and disclosure at the company level at the earliest practicable
date. The report will also need to include advice on timing, thresholds and
governance arrangements;
• COAG also agreed that the National Pollutant Inventory (NPI) would not
be used as a vehicle for reporting greenhouse gas emissions and that no
further work be undertaken by the Environment Protection and Heritage
Council on incorporating greenhouse gas emission reporting in the NPI
pending finalisation of the above report; and
• COAG further agreed that every effort should be made to
reach agreement on a national purpose-built legislation by
December 2006. States and Territories reserved the right to
use the NPI if the Commonwealth, States and Territories
failed to reach agreement on national purpose-built
legislation at COAG’s next meeting.”
Pilot Outcomes
• Final Position Paper
– Issues investigation
– Analysis of costs and benefits of proposal
– The Pilot (NEPM) Proposal
• Report: Findings from data collection and
disclosure
www.epa.vic.gov.au/air/greenhouse_pilot/default.asp
The Pilot (NEPM) Proposal
What would an NPI NEI with GHG look like?
Disclosed alongside other emissions?
Carbon dioxide
300,000,000
What would an NPI NEI with GHG look like?
Displayed as a “local” emission?
What would an NPI NEI with GHG look like?
Report greenhouse gas emissions to Greenhouse Challenge and NPI
separately?
What would an NPI NEI with GHG look like?
•
Mandatory reporting of GHG emissions and energy data
•
Thresholds applied at a company level of 25,000 tonnes of
greenhouse gas in CO2-e pa, or production/consumption of 100
terajoules of energy annually – new threshold Category 4
•
Data reported to Government at the facility level; and public
disclosure at the company level
•
GHG emissions from off-site transport attributable to a company
is reported
•
Diffuse (aggregated) emission estimates included as is currently
the case
What would be reported?
•
Direct emissions of 6 Kyoto gases: CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6
•
Indirect emissions (CO2–e indirect) from electricity use on site
•
Electricity use in TJ or MWh, type and quantity of fuel (not public)
•
Emission reduction activities (tonnes CO2-e abated and actions
implemented) – (voluntary)
•
Industry comment (voluntary)
–All at facility level
–‘Head office’ type facility for purposes of reporting emissions such as
company-wide fleet emissions or aggregating a number
of small sites
How would this data be displayed?
How will reporting occur?
Streamlining of emissions information is important
• Best case – single reporting system for all emissions collection programs
(GHG, NPI combustion gases and other NPI emissions)
• Next best: single reporting system for GHG reporting?
•
No. of company
participants
Greenhouse
Challenge +
National Pollutant
Inventory
Total company
participants
780
1577
Unique company
participants
637
1434
Companies
common to both
schemes
143
143
Next best – flexible reporting for GHG, enabling reporter
“choice” between reporting via AGO’s OSCAR or NPI,
depending on their reporting “demographic”
“Flexible” Reporting System
DEH disclosure
website
Data subset for NPI to DEH (once
approved by jurisdiction)
OSCAR: If NPI
(GHG) then set
facility level
reporting
Data assessment in OSCAR
10%
•
GCP Reporter
& current NPI
Reporter
Jurisdictional NPI
team via
(NRT)
90%
GHG Y/N?
Current NPI
Reporter only
Impacts of a Varied NEPM
Industry – Summary of costs and benefits
Costs
Consultation/ advice to government
Understanding compliance
requirements
Benefits
Regulatory certainty – level playing
field
Flexibility provides most efficient
reporting process
Data collection/ calculation (scope 1)
Consistent and comparable data
Data collection/ calculation (scope 2)
Good performance showcased
Administrative reporting cost
Transparency builds credibility and
trust with community
Disclosure drives competition
Increases corporate knowledge of
greenhouse issue
Summary
Major expense is additional
compliance cost of approximately
$500 per current reporting facility
and $600 for new facilities.
Benefits varied – market certainty,
building community confidence, lowcost burden reporting and greenhouse
reporting equity for industry.
Impacts of a Varied NEPM
Government – Summary of costs and benefits
Costs
Summary
Benefits
Legislation development process
Provides consistent and comparable
data to inform policy decisions
NPI database systems modifications
Low cost and expeditious development
and implementation
OSCAR Plus system modifications
Preparation of guidance material for
business
Allows harmonisation of existing
programs to continue
Drives competitive emission reduction
(policy outcome)
Additional implementation resourcing
for jurisdictions
Delivers on commitment for lowest
reporting cost burden to business
Establishment costs $238,750,
ongoing $400,000 pa. Relatively low
despite additional Govt burden of
integrating two reporting systems.
Low cost, short lead time, delivers on
low cost burden for business commit’t,
progress on streamlining other GHG
program-reporting not hindered.
Impacts of a Varied NEPM
Community – Summary of costs and benefits
Costs
Essentially nil
Benefits
Satisfies community right to know
Information empowers and informs
public debate on greenhouse issues
Disclosure drives emission reduction
Single information source for
emissions to the environment
Provides consistent info. to assist
investment sector decision-making
Increases value and relevance of NPI
program
Summary
Costs not directly attributable to the
community
High social benefit to community
from increased knowledge of the
issue and more capacity to engage in
the debate.
Strength of proposal
• Low costs (existing frameworks, minimal additional
effort for reporters to report GHG)
• Short implementation timeframes
• Consistency with current program
• Pre-existence of confidentiality safeguards
• International PRTR precedents
• Opportunity to be flexibly implemented without
impeding streamlining work of TWG
• Modification of existing program - least red tape
Pilot Findings – policy stream
• “The NPI is a suitable mechanism for reporting and disclosure
of greenhouse gas emissions in Australia. With existing
frameworks in place this can be done relatively quickly and at
low cost to government and business. There are clear
international precedents with NPI-equivalent programs
throughout the UK and Europe currently including greenhouse
gases.
Pilot Findings – practical stream
• 25 companies, 70 sites successfully provided data for
2004/05
• Proposed implementation model, in particular its flexible
approach, was supported. This support ranged from
strong to cautious, to near ambivalence.
• Very low effort to report to pilot (average 3 hours per
site)
• No reports from the Pilot companies themselves, or
from EPA Victoria’s experience, of negative
consequences of disclosing this data.
How to have your say
“Submissions on all aspects of draft NEPM variation & impact
statement welcome
Details about making a submission on EPHC website
(www.ephc.gov.au)
Written submissions should be sent to:
Ms Monina Gilbey
Project Officer
NEPC Service Corporation
Level 5, 81 Flinders Street
Adelaide SA 5000
Email: [email protected]”
Or, to EPA Victoria Greenhouse Pilot team:
[email protected]
Questions